GOP Debate, The First of Many Interviews for a Leader

It’s back… the day of campaigning is upon us, with the kick off being the first GOP debate for presidential hopefuls.  The discussion has begun asking who is “Presidential Material” and of those who participated in the debate, who won. Conversations on talk radio run the gamut from  ”Who can defeat Obama in 2012?” to “Who is the fiscal conservative?”  If the goal of the Republican  party is merely to soundly defeat Mr. Obama, then no one at this point seems to fit the bill; YET.

It is early, but each individual has been living a lifetime, and that lifetime represents whether he or she possesses the qualities that make for a strong, honest, courageous and Presidential character.

After searching the internet for thoughts on leadership and what makes  a good leader, I ran across this video.  The qualities found in leaders who have affected the world for the good can be summed up in what these young men describe as leadership.  Great leaders recognize their role as servants.  Great Presidents recognize their role as a servant of the people.

Numerous books and websites discuss what characteristics make a man or woman a leader.  These five leadership traits/leadership qualities  seem to resonate with those in the leadership business.

1. Honest
2. Forward-Looking
3. Competent
4. Inspiring
5. Intelligent

It is good to see that honesty tops the list, as it is imperative for a leader to be trusted by others with power and decision making: yet humility is lacking in this list.  Humility allows a leader to lead by example. It is the trait that taught him to respect, serve,  and submit to the leaders in his life.  As stated by Aristotle,   “He who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander.”

“Without vision, the people will perish,” according to the book of Proverbs.  A leader looks to the future, plans for the future, yet learns from the past.

Leaders must be competent.  In other words, they must have the needed skill, knowledge and ability to do what their job demands of them.  An individual running for President will not have all the working knowledge needed for such a powerful position, but one will be surrounding oneself with those who do have expertise in a given area. Competent leaders recognize that they need a support system to fill in those areas in which they are weakest.

Leaders are inspiring.  President John Quincy Adams said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”  A rousing speech may temporarily inspire, but it is what one does with one’s life that has lasting affects on others.  Inspiration is more than being charismatic, rather it is living a life worthy of emulation.

Leaders are intelligent.  They are not however found only in Ivy League Universities.  It seems that our culture has defined intelligence as being educated in the most prestigious halls of learning.  Merriam/Webster defines it as: ”the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason(2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests).”  According to this definition, understanding and reason are foundational to intelligence.  One may have a gilded frame holding a parchment diploma from Yale or Harvard and yet be lacking in the area of intelligence.

The GOP must not choose a man or woman to serve as a presidential candidate because they are the best shoe in for victory over Obama.  We the people must be actively engaged in this interview process for the next President of the United States.  The leader of the free world works for us and we get to read the resumes and interview the candidates over the next few months to determine who is the correct man or woman for the job.  Our due diligence is mandatory in finding the leader who is humble, honest, forward looking, competent, inspiring and intelligent.  Of the 307,006,550 people living in the United States, someone must be exactly right for the job.

A Conversation About Home Schooling

Sixteen years of my life, thus far, have been dedicated to the education of my children.  I have home schooled all four and can proudly say, that it continues to pay in eternal dividends.  My first graduate is now a junior at Biola University studying journalism and effectively navigating the world of higher education.  My younger three are in high school and junior high, and they get to expand their home schooling horizons through the Biola STAR Academics program, where they take core classes, while enjoying the benefit found only in home schooling.  It has been a road less traveled and many times exhausting, but it has been worth all the late night preparations of essays and tears of “just not getting it” when faced with an algebraic equation.  The dividends that are gained through the diligent side by side work with my children, not just in their academic life, but as a family are priceless and something that could not be recreated if an institution had my children for 8 to 10 hours a day.  It is the best school choice we as a family ever made.

My co-worker at STAR Academics and I were discussing the following parent-teacher conference film in light of education in general. Having home schooled for so long and having been actively involved with the teaching of other home schooled students, I have found that most home schooling families have counted the cost of sending their children to the local assembly line of education and have made the choice to swim against the status quo. Those who come from the public schools, are usually shocked by the vigorous program we offer two days a week at STAR Academics, and the time and dedication that is demanded of the parents themselves. There is also the surprise that the “A” easily gained at the public school may not be as easily achieved in our home schooling program. The kinds of conversations that many times take place are, “How come Jimmy is not excelling like he was at his old high school? Why is he only getting a “B-”, when he used to get all “A”s in his A.P. classes?” To this type of question, my site administrator explains that, colleges will ultimately look at the scores of SAT or ACT tests as these compare apples to apples, and that different grading standards of the various schools in the valley, be it private, public or home schooling will be measured in that standardized test.

She gave the example of a school that takes remedial students, just trying to prepare them for the California High School Exit Exam, who end up getting “A”s as seniors while passing an eighth grade level math course. Their GPA may look good, but the comparison of strenuous academic criteria and standards found at the neighboring Christian school makes the “A” student from the remdial school not even compare to a “B” student at the private school. Therefore a standardized test for universities to weigh the student’s academic aptitude is necessary.

The goal of most home schooling families I have been privileged to work with goes deeper than just academics and involves the educating and nurturing of the whole child: body, soul and spirit. Because the parent is the teacher, he or she recognizes the areas of strength and weakness in the individual student and can make adjustments to meet those needs. Remaining diligent to the call, finding outside help when needed and realizing that the goal should be to instill a love of learning, will help when the daily grind gets rough.

Whether one chooses Private, Charter, Public or Home Schooling for their children, ultimately the training of the child rests solely on the parents and their involvement in the process. One can not enter a parent teacher conference and place all the blame on the teacher, as the closest teacher a child will ever have is the parent. Too many times, the following video, is the scene in a parent teacher conference. Watch and learn how not to be like this mother portrayed in this telling scenario.

The State of the Union

Listening to the State of the Union while driving home, without the benefit of seeing the President give his speech, allowed me to hear his words and digest them without television bias. The thing that I came away with is that nothing he said had a kernel of truth in it, as it is redundant with past promises that have not been kept.

President Obama reminds me of the boy who called wolf and America is onto him,  his words mean nothing.  He spoke of reaching out to the Republicans in various areas of policy and legislation, and yet, where was this in the past two years? Where was it when the Republicans had ideas to offer in the health care debate? They were willing to play, but the Democrats forced them to sit on the sideline. Why now is he willing to work with the Republicans?

America has called Obama’s bluff, and like a bully who has been caught in the school yard and reprimanded, he is now trying to win the trust of the people by tickling their ears with niceties. Our President is a good speech maker and he promises pie in the sky; but the American people are hungry, for he has not delivered on anything that he has said that he will do.

This year is a crucial time in America history to radically do what must be done.  Like a cancer, and this debt and deficit are just that; must be cut out, radiated, and chemo-ed. These treatments hurt, but they save lives.  America’s life needs to be surgically saved and tough cuts must be made.

Are we the people willing to go through the treatment that will revive the health of this country?  Let us hold our representatives to their word and get the job done this time!

National School Choice Week: What’s My Role?

A full house, at the Nixon Library,  greeted nationally syndicated talk show host Hugh Hewitt and Dick Morris, author and political commentator, jointly hosting an evening dedicated to School Choice Week.  The Education Revolution Tour:  Restoring America’s Pride is touring America to offer a bright hope for the future of America’s kids.

We should be leading the world in education, yet our 15-year-olds rank 35th out of 57 countries in literacy and math; we are behind most industrial nations!

According to the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) involving a half-million students in 41 countries,  U.S. fourth-graders are performing poorly, middle school students worse, and high school students are unable to compete. By the same criteria used to say we were “average” in elementary school, “we appear to be “near the bottom” at the high school level.”

What is school choice?  Dick Morris answered saying that a “revolution is happening this year in the United States.”  He shared that only 15% of American kids attend Private or Parochial schools and “the rest go to the only remnant of socialism in the United States = Public School.  This is the only area in a parent’s life that they don’t have a choice.”

In 1990, per student spending was $7,300  and today, $10,000: resulting in 0% improvement in reading and 4/10% in math.  More money has not improved our students, but it has paid for more bureaucracy and teacher’ unions who push for teacher tenure and seniority pay.

“We have to let the kids, who are trapped (in bad schools), find a way to excellency,” said Hewitt. “School choice isn’t just a tool, it is a higher calling.  Academic performance of students to other kids internationally is down because we gave up on doing difficult things. There is too little return for the hard work.”

“One size doesn’t fit all.  Kids are unique and should have the option to find a school that fits their needs.  If we empower the parents, we will reform education,” stated Morris.

So what is the answer? School Choice.

“Our message is simple: we need a K-12 education system that provides a wide array of options. We need an effective education system that has the flexibility to personalize and motivate students and allow parents to choose the school that is best for their child.”  National School Choice Week

Not all schools are in bad shape and do in fact produce quality students exceptionally educated, but this is the exception. Most are following in the footsteps of Detroit, “where a report from the Detroit News Monday suggested that without government aid, the city of Detroit will be forced to close down nearly half of the city’s public schools in the next two years. Additionally, the paper warns that average high school class sizes will swell to 62 students by the following year.”

Detroit is an example of what ultimately happens when teacher pensions and union contracts continue to grow as the economy slumps.  The students and the community suffer when learning comes to a stand still at the hand of unions and bureaucrats.

This is a-political, it is about American children everywhere, who need an exceptional education and deserve to have the best schooling  provided in the greatest nation on earth.  We can do this and we must demand that it gets done. Choice is the answer through vouchers, tax credits and scholarships; as well as providing creative educational experiences utilizing virtual learning, specialized schools with paths to various vocations and careers and outcome based standards so the tax dollars won’t be wasted.  Charter schools, home schools, private and public should all play a unique part in the educational landscape of America.

Get involved.  Become active as School Choice advocate.  Attend an event and hear the exciting ways  schools will see the light at the end of this dark age, in 2011.

“The modern issue of school integration is school choice,” Morris said.  It is THAT important.

Leadership Material: Sarah Palin

An animated conversation ensued around the lunch table, as Sarah Palin, her leadership and potential as a Presidential candidate was heatedly discussed.  The women, all home schooling moms and conservative Christians from various backgrounds, passionately voiced opinions that ranged from a high level of respect for Governor Palin, to a concern for her family, if she runs for President.

One mom held the conviction that women should not be in positions of leadership over men.  I respect her opinions, though I do not agree with them.  I decided to do some Biblical digging to see what women in the Bible were leaders and what qualities they possessed.  The woman that immediately came to mind was Deborah, the Judge of Israel around 1200 B.C. found in the book of Judges chapters 4 and 5.  One commentary stated the following:

Deborah was unique among the women and men of  Bible history in that she was a prophetess, a judge and a military leader all in one – a powerful triple combination of authority and responsibility held by only two other Israelites, Moses and Samuel.
She was referred to as the “mother of Israel” because of her leadership in the battle against Canaanite oppression.

Biblically, women have been raised up “for such a time as these“, and have been mighty leaders, used to serve God in various capacities. Deborah is an inspirational woman who not only led in a judicial and legislative role, but also led in a victorious military role as well.  The Bible says that under her leadership Israel enjoyed peace for forty years.

Many women throughout history have demonstrated an exceptional ability to lead.  Sarah Palin is such a woman, and perhaps this is what has caused intense fear in those who oppose her point of view.  She is, in fact, a threat, because she stands against everything women on the left have put forward as leaders.  Her point of view reflects that of millions of American women; where as the feminist voice that has had the bully pulpit for so long, has finally been muffled by one that rings truer to most.

Is Sarah Palin the next President?  Maybe.  Is Sarah Palin a leader that speaks of a reality that millions of Americans live and adhere to everyday?  Absolutely!  Perhaps she has also been raised up for such a time as these.

Whistling and Cheering at a Memorial Service?

I have attended many memorial services. Some have been healing, some have left me with nostalgic tears flowing because of wonderful memories, and most have been a celebration the life of the deceased; but I have never been to a service where those in attendance cheer, whistle and shout during the eulogy. What was experienced during the Tuscon Memorial Service was extremely irreverent.

I kept wondering what the families were thinking as their loved one’s honor was being over shadowed by the cheers for President Obama. I don’t believe he thought it was appropriate to outshine those he came to honor. I almost think he should have told the crowd to be respectful, like a father would to a disruptive child in the same situation. I wonder greatly what this says about society and this generation?

The words shared by the President were poignant as he reflected on the lives of those who had died; and I am sure it was an honor to have the President part of this momentous event for the victim’s families; but I just can’t help being saddened by the raucous crowd who attended for reasons that elude me. Was there a true desire to uplift these families in their time of distress, or was it a once in a lifetime chance to be at an event where the President was? The behavior was juvenile at best. Decorum and respect for the dead was lacking in the whistling and cheering crowds. I kept wondering who raised these individuals and where were their manners.

Yet, in spite of the rudeness factor, beautiful thoughts were shared and honor was bestowed on the six victims. I pray that each family and friend can begin their journey to healing tonight.

Thanks for the Memories Nancy Pelosi

Should Boehner be Under Fire for his First Cuts?

Responding to the question of whether John Boehner will keep a tight leash on the troops, Patrick O’Connor responded to The News Hub by saying,  ”Actually no, he’s not….. (they will be) Doing more symbolic legislating than real legislating. They are going to pass a package of cuts, I believe on Thursday or Friday, that would trim operating budgets for member offices, committees and leadership staffs; $25-$35 million, a pittance when you are looking at a budget of $3 1/2 trillion.”

A scoffing tone can be heard in the term pittance, in light of the first cuts that Boehner desires to make. And it may be a mere molecule in the cosmos of Congressional spending, but it is in fact, a movement toward decreasing the budget. If a message is to be sent to those who hired this new Congress, a message of personal belt tightening is a good way to begin. The newly elected, who elect to cut their own pay, may well then be trusted to cut those things not quite as near and dear to them.

“There has to be a visible gesture that people can immediately relate to,” said Pete Sepp, the executive vice president of the conservative National Taxpayers Union.

“And cutting pay would be one of the best symbols, because unlike virtually anything else the federal government does, when Congress spends money on its own salaries and benefits, people can make a direct comparison to their own situation,” Sepp said.

Pittance or not, cutting one’s own pay to demonstrate the new direction of this Congress is a smashing way to start their new inning.

One Vote, One Person

The fight for “One Vote, One Person” in the case of  Clemons v. U.S. Department of Commerce was decided upon on Monday, December 13, 2010.

“The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.”

Scott Sharpen shared his disappointment after a two year fight to bring this case before the U.S. Supreme Court. “The lack of jurisdiction” reference is the Court saying that it doesn’t have the authority to get involved. While we strongly disagree, the Court gets to make the call.”

His passion for the Constitution and love of country is evident in the personal dedication he gave to press forward in this difficult battle to correct the unconstitutionality of  The Re-apportionment Act of 1929 and equal representation.

Scott stated, “The Constitution is self evident that it is apportioned equally.”

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution reads,

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least oneRepresentative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

Up until 1920, Congress had applied this rule of re-apportionment, growing the House, as the voice of the people, proportionally after each census.  In 1920, Congress went against the Constitution.  The House wanted to grow to 483, but the Senate realized that their power was threatened and thus they killed the bill for 483 House seats.

The Re-apportionment Act of 1929 was the result of this stalemate and has locked the number of House seats at 435. Though the population continued to grow substantially, Congress ignored the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers that the House was to be the representation closest to the people and reflect the population in terms of growth.

Equality of the people and equality of representation is the fundamental goal of the House of Representatives.  Whereas in 1790, each House member represented approximately 33,000 people, the average size of each House district today is over 700,000 people and growing. This fundamental goal set forth in the Constitution has been radically altered by the number 435.  No longer are “We the people” the voice of government, through representation, but rather a block of 700,000 per representative.  A House Representative can not possibly do what is best for his or her constituents, individually, with such a disproportionate number to represent.

The Government argued in Clemons v. U.S. Department of Commerce that “It has always been this way.  As long as we pick a number between 50 and 10,000, we are fine.”  Yet, it has not always been this way and only in the last 100 years has the number not grown with population.  At the state levels, equal representation has been Constitutionally mandated by the Supreme Court.  In Westberry v. Sanders (1964), the Court stated that representation “needs to be as equal as practical.”

Karcher v. Daggett (1983), the court said that the deviation in New Jersey districts at 0.6984% was too great, and must be accurate within a fraction.  The national level of deviation found in Montana with a population of 805,00 and Wyoming with a population of 495,00 is an 82% deviation. The federal government is the only governing entitiy that doesn’t uphold a one person, one vote standard.

Gregory Korte, of USA TODAY wrote, “Some political scientists see other benefits to a bigger House. It would put members closer to constituents and provide more opportunities for women and minorities to get elected, says Brian Frederick of Bridgewater State University in Massachusetts, author of Congressional Representation and Constituents: The Case for Increasing the House of Representatives.

If the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of  equal representation at all other levels of government across the United States, it certainly has jurisdiction and a mandate to apply the same standards at a federal level.  The newest census calculations for apportionment are demonstrated in this interactive chart here. The balance of power will shift in light of the new census numbers and perhaps that will raise the ire of a few, but this matter must continue to be acted upon, even if the Courts and Congress refuse to act within the guidelines of the Constitution.  It may be that a movement of the people, a grassroots uprising that calls for “One vote, One Person”, is what will be needed to regain a truly democratic body in the House.

“[T]he people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.” – Federalist No. 49

The Physician’s Crusade Against Abortion: A Review and a Prayer

“Life begins at conception” is the cry of Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer and many other physicians in the mid-nineteenth century, who crusaded to educate their society in the midst of an abortion epidemic.  Frederick Dyer’s, The Physicians’ Crusade Against Abortion meticulously documents the passionate campaign waged for the unborn by Dr. Storer and other physicians. This crusade was directly responsible for influencing abortion laws in the United States, as well as educating women to the fact that abortion is murder, at any time of pregnancy.  Dyer’s employment of biology, medical terminology and practices, as well as the Hippocratic Oath “I will do no harm or injustice ” is fundamental to the argument for life.

Dr. Frederick Dyer gives a detailed account, utilizing letters, essays and speeches to major medical journals and societies that laid the ground work for new laws to protect the unborn, as well as the protection of women, who many times sought abortions, not recognizing the moral and physical ramifications. Storer also reprimands the clergy for not standing against criminal abortion in their churches, and calls on the newspapers to condemn the advertisers of abortion and quack abortion remedies.  Dyer states that we have Storer to thank for our very lives, as statistically speaking, many would not be alive today had not the efforts to stop this abortion epidemic been waged in earnest.

Dr. Horatio Robinson Storer passionately states,

“And now words fail. Of the mother, by consent or by her own hand, imbued with her infant’s blood; of the equally guilty father, who counsels or allows the crime; of the wretches who by their wholesale murders far out-Herod Burke and Hare (William Burke and William Hare were indicted in 1828 for 16 murders in one year in Scotland); of the public sentiment which palliates, pardons, and would even praise this so common violation of the all law, human and divine, or all instinct, or all reason, all pity, all mercy, all love, -we leave those to speak who can.”

The battle against abortion is not limited to the twentieth century and Roe v. Wade, but strikes at the heart of a Christian nation.  The Physicians’ Crusade Against Abortion is a necessary read for all who are in the fight for life and the unborn.  The comprehensive details of the book may make for a lengthy read, yet it is well worth the effort.  What struck at my heart was the realization that abortion is not only tied to Roe v. Wade, but was a very serious issue in the Church during the mid 1800s.  That most abortions were attained by married Protestant women, calls into question the moral health of society in the nineteenth century and perhaps sheds light on where we are today.

Dr. Dyer’s bio is impressive:

“Frederick N. Dyer obtained his Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from Michigan State University in 1968. He has published numerous scientific articles and two major reviews during four years as a university professor and more than twenty years as a research psychologist at the Army Medical Research Laboratory and elsewhere.

“In 1993, Dr. Dyer actively pursued a long-held interest in the history of abortion in the United States and in the key figure in that history, Horatio Robinson Storer. Dyer’s biography of Dr. Storer, Champion of Women and the Unborn, was published in 1999. Storer’s influence on other physicians was profound and the total of these physicians’ efforts, the subject of the current book, produced a huge impact not only on abortion legislation, but on women’s behavior with thousands of women changing their minds about abortion.”

A Response to “Did the Tea Party Cost Republicans the Senate….”

An article entitled: Did the Tea Party Cost Republicans the Senate, and Should It Matter? stated

It’s impossible to know exactly how things would have played out had the Tea Party movement not existed. But it certainly appears that the nomination of both O’Donnell and Angle cost the Republican Party. Had those two seats gone to the GOP, Republicans might now be in a position to celebrate a takeover of both houses of Congress — instead of just one.

My response to the above statement is ABSOLUTELY NOT. The Tea Party caused an uprising in this nation that is greatly needed and  has only just begun. This was a small battle and the war for our Country is far from over. Angle and O’Donnell are war heroes and not casualties. This may be a time to retreat and retrench, but this fight for morality and conservationism is far from over. Victory was achieved for the right last night in many places and we can not overlook those victories!

But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.  It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.” — Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

If we are to see the efforts of the past two years fade away in one election night, then we do nothing; but if we desire to free our children and grandchildren from the shackles that the State and Federal Government has placed upon us and them, then we battle to win the war, not giving up when a skirmish is lost.  Be eternally vigilant!

I Voted

As I voted today, a little old man wandered into the Registrar of Voters, escorted by his son. His hat caught my eye, as it proudly displayed “Pearl Harbor Survivor“.   The son sat his elderly father down in a chair and went to retrieve the voting documents, as the war hero sat, quietly smiling and observing his surroundings.

After voting, I walked over to the men and thanked the war hero for serving his country. It struck me that this patriot, who survived a terrorist attack almost sixty-nine years ago, giving his all for his country, was still fighting the good fight and voting. What a tremendous example to us today.

What would those who have given their lives for our country, spanning the last two hundred thirty-four years,  think of the morals and politics of 2010?  Is the blood that was shed for freedom and liberty crying out in praise or pain over the direction of our Nation?

So many times we must settle for the better of two evils, because the best has not risen to the top of the candidate heap; but what are we doing daily to promote morality that will have a lasting effect on America?  Getting the best candidates in office, voting for or against propositions and being involved in this great democracy to steer it in the direction of freedom and liberty is crucial, however, our daily choices as citizens have a greater effect on this nation, than one man or woman elected to a political office.  The politician may be our voice, but “We the People” are the arms and legs that move this nation toward or away from its moral foundation.  Our movement has been at a sprint like speed, away from morality and religion, so we must make an effort to return to the heights from which we have fallen.

‎”Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~ John Adams

We are no longer a moral and religious people.  We are religious in name only and because of this, we have no moral compass.  If what John Adams says is in fact true, then our Constitution is inadequate for this nation.  So do we re-write the Constitution, a document that has been the example for so many countries around the world, or do we change the people?

Daniel Webster (1782-1852) — United States Senator from Massachusetts and Secretary of State stated:

No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.

To preserve the government we must also preserve morals. Morality rests on religion; if you destroy the foundation, the superstructure must fall. When the public mind becomes vitiated and corrupt, laws are a nullity and constitutions are waste paper.

Vote, for it is one’s civic duty;  but live a life that demands morality and upholds religion, for this is in fact what will secure “the rights and privileges of a free people.”

California and Cannabis

Doing research on marijuana is quite a “trip”; while finding videos to post that are “G” rated on the subject is near impossible! Venice Beach, California is a place where medical pot is found aplenty and pushing for legalization is on every corner. Business cards are distributed by Hashbar.TV to visitors of the Venice boardwalk and even minors are handed the propaganda.

Californians will be voting on the legalization of marijuana this November. To argue with the proponents of legalized marijuana is like arguing with idiots, yet the issue is now on the ballot and therefore the discussion must be had. Most of the arguments for legalized pot use, play on the sentiment that those who need it medically, can obtain it more easily, if it were legal for all; or that legalization will cut down on the Mexican drug war and destroy the black market, allowing bankrupt California to tax the product, putting dollars back into her coffers.

The “Yes on 19″ webpage states that  Proposition 19 will:

Control cannabis like alcohol.

Put our police priorities where they belong.

Generate billions of dollars in revenue.

The proponents claim that because California has a failed policy “causing massive harm”,  it should be replaced with a “legal, controlled market, all while eliminating enforcement costs and bringing in new tax revenue.”

Yet the language of the proposition “may be the worst drafted legislation since 1996…” according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Legalizes marijuana under California but not federal law.  Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana.

• Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use.
• Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older.
• Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using in public, or smoking it while minors are present.
• Maintains prohibitions against driving while impaired.
• Limits employers’ ability to address marijuana use to situations where job performance is actually impaired.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
• The fiscal effects of this measure could vary substantially depending on: (1) the extent to which the federal government continues to enforce federal marijuana laws and (2) whether the state and local governments choose to authorize, regulate, and tax various marijuana-related activities.
• Savings of potentially several tens of millions of dollars annually to the state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders.
• Increase in state and local government tax and fee revenues, potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

 

Recent polling shows most Californians oppose Proposition 19.  The statewide Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted October 2-4 shows California voters rejecting Prop. 19 with 53% voting “No” and 43% voting “Yes.”

When one visits a place where medical marijuana is prevalent and the users of the drug wander the boulevard stoned, one must ask, “Is this what all streets of California will look like if all may freely partake?”    When Democrats are even voicing “Vote no”, one must realize that this proposition is bad business.  Democratic pollster Pat Caddell made a brilliant and humorous point on Hannity’s Great American Panel stating, “California has made smoking a capitol offense, yet they want to legalize pot.”  Even Richard Eastman an activist who was instrumental in opening  one of the first medical marijuana buyers clubs in California says to vote no on Prop. 19.

What begins on this left coast ends up wafting into the rest of America. What say you America? Are you ready for Cannabis on every corner?

America the Beautiful

Beauty from the ashes of 9/11 is found in the many individuals and companies that did something to make a difference. Most of us have friends, family and stories that make it all the more “real”; but do we allow ourselves to be moved only today, or have we been changed forever to stand for our country?

The following video is an example of beauty that honored those who gave and lost all on 9/11.

President Clinton Throws Jerry Brown Under the Bus

California’s Governor seat is up for grabs in just 53 days. According to the most recent telephone survey taken by The Rasmussen Report, Meg Whitman has 48% support of likely California voters to Jerry Brown’s 45%. Today, Meg Whitman’s Campaign released the following political advertisement statewide.

To use Bill Clinton in this political spot to undermine Jerry Brown is a brilliant move. Whitman can let the Democrats destroy themselves in their own words, while she continues to push her vision for California.
Well played.

California’s Prop 8: Yes, No, Maybe?

When a California judge ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional,  most were not shocked.  The victory at the polls on November 5, 2008 was to be short lived and those who supported California Marriage Protection Act knew that the battle was far from over.  On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker decided that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.  The voters of California have voted twice to make marriage defined as “between a man and a woman”.  Proposition 22, voted on in 2000 and passed with 61% of the vote, was ruled unconstitutional under California’s constitution. Interestingly, the statute is very close in wording to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996 by Congress.  Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment initiative, was drafted to override the Court’s ruling by using the language in Proposition 22, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” as a constitutional amendment.  It too passed with 52.24% of the vote.

On Monday, August 16, 2010, a federal appeals court put a hold on U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker‘s ruling, halting the same-sex marriages in California until at least December.

Loyola Law School professor Richard Hasen stated,

“I think there are strategic reasons why even the most ardent supporter of gay marriage could opt for a stay,” said Hasen, an expert on federal court stays. “The concern is that rushing things to the Supreme Court could lead to an adverse result [for supporters of gay marriage.] If this case takes another year to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be more states that adopt same-sex marriage and more judicial opinions that reach that conclusion.”

Sadly, this argument adopts an evolutionary legal philosophy which holds that precedent and legal opinion somehow trump foundational truths found in the Constitution, as well as thousands of years of tradition.  Again, the virus of ethical relativism has infected all areas of life and spreads the disease using the ideology of tolerance and progress.

Those who stand for morality must never “rest on their laurels”, for the opponents will not rest either.  A battle may be won, but another will emerge, for that is the nature of this world; but to gain ground, only to lose due to complacency, is not an option.  The citizens in California who voted for Proposition 8 must continue to press the issue, and not cave to activist judges and an irate gay community.   Morality is not a shifting sand ideology, but one based on a foundation that is immovable.  It can however be covered with layers of superficial silt, produced by activist judges and a society with no moral tether.  Be diligent, don’t sleep and continue the good fight.

Arizona Immigration Law Hits a Judicial Snag

Arizona has  implored the Feds to do something about the boarder issue for years.  Today the U.S. District Judge, Susan Bolton, ruled on Arizona’s SB 1070, blocking some of the provisions within the law, specifically the provision that allows police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. Other sections struck down in the Arizona legislation were those that dealt with making it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers, as well as making it a crime for illegals to perform or look for work.  The rest of the law will go into effect on Thursday.

Arizona is well within the scope of the law to provide  for the protection of her citizens.  The law itself was fashioned after Federal law, giving the State the tools needed to protect the boarder and her citizens.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called the ruling “misguided.”

“The federal government has a right and a responsibility to enforce existing laws, but when they fail to meet that responsibility, we should not stand in the way of the states that take action to respond to the very real threat of border violence, drug cartels and human smuggling,” he said in a written statement. “There’s nowhere in the Constitution that says a state is limited to what it absolutely won’t do and can be stopped for what it might do and to exercise a judgment against a state that has passed a law that is consistent with existing federal law is beyond absurd.”

Jan Brewer, Arizona’s governor, stated that they will appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.  She believes that the law is constitutionally sound and mirrors what the Federal government should have been doing all along.  Arizona is the most porous boarder with the greatest illegal immigration problem.  The crime, drugs, human traffic-ing that is a result of illegal immigration, not to mention the economic drain on the state, has most Arizonians in full agreement with the law.

A Muzzle on Free Speech

Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in free and open encounter? She needs no policies, nor strantegems, nor licensings to make her victorious…. Give her but room.” John Milton stated in Areopagatica.

The Disclose Act is not a campaign reform bill but rather an attack on free speech.  According to an HSLDA E-lert, the Senate will vote on S. 3295, sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer (NY), tomorrow afternoon, Tuesday, July 27, 2010, in an attempt to overcome a filibuster and force a final vote.

This bill is an attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  ”The Supreme Court decided that corporations and labor unions that want to spend money on campaigns to elect or defeat a candidate are protected in doing so by the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

American citizens make up corporations and organizations, and the individual citizen’s right to free speech comes under attack in this Senate bill.  To quash an organization’s right to state opinions about candidates, effectively silences the individuals within the corporation and the right to think and speak freely about political concerns.

Congress must uphold the rights of all citizens, including those within a legal corporate organization.  It is the American way to debate, for in discussion and disagreement, great opinions are born.  The discourse that led to our founding documents were through the fire of passionate debate, resulting in the creation of a government that has always stood for protecting the people from the intrusion of government censorship.   This bill is another attempt to stifle the voices of individuals who support a candidate that speaks for them and represents their views.  S. 3295 will have a chilling effect on free speech and must not be passed.